🚀 go-pugleaf

"gman" <gman99@canada.com> wrote in message
news:a82f1ece.0212160435.ded13fa@posting.google.com...
> "zeptepe" <zeptepe@neap.net> wrote in message
news:<_JJK9.226388$C8.631533@nnrp1.uunet.ca>...
> If a cop pulls you over...which they can do without needing any
> reason...

Well, guess what? They need a reason. It's not hard to "manufacture" one,
though.

> they can demand to see your liscense, registration, insurance
> and they can check for your safety sticker (assuming you have NS
> plates). If your car is in an obvious state of disrepair the cops
> could conduct an isnpection beleiving that the safety sticker is a
> fraud and remove your car. They can check all of these in their
> computer and validate all of these documents. They cannot unreasonably
> search you or your belongings without a warrant.

The vehicle is one of "your belongings" to use your terms. It is not
"unreasonable" to search your car if they have "probable cause".... see
above.

> If you happen to fit
> a description of a bank robber than they will likely arrest you first
> then search you. If a dog was sniffing your car and they suspected
> drugs and searched your car any law school student could get you off.

Uh, don't think so. It depends on whether the dog was brought as a result of
a "reasonable and probable ground".

> A drug sniffing dog is tantamount to an illegal search. One could
> argue either way but I doubt that it would hold up in court.

I don't.

> Most of these roadblocks are to check safety stickers which gives them
> an excuse to smell inside your car...if they suspect you have been
> drinking they can ask you for an ALERT test...you can refuse. If they
> strongly suspect they can issue a breathalyzer demand, you can refuse
> this but it carries the same penalty as impaired driving. If you know
> you haven't been drinking take the test, when it comes back with a big
> fat zero, get the badge number and see a lawyer. An unsubstantiated
> breathalyzer demand is equivalent to false arrest.

Good luck proving the officer did not have "reasonable and probable
grounds".